The presentation analyzes the demographic changes and segregation dynamics in England between 2001 and 2011, addressing claims of 'white flight' and decreased segregation. It critiques traditional segregation measures, such as the dissimilarity index, and introduces spatial methods to assess neighborhood dissimilarities over time. Results indicate that while some areas experienced decreased dissimilarity, caution is advised in interpreting this as a sign of greater integration due to ongoing residential patterns.

1. Motion Charts, White Flight
and Ethnic Cliffs? Ethno
demographic change in the
2011 Census
Richard Harris
University of Bristol

2. Abstract
• The aim of this presentation is to investigate
claims of decreased segregation yet also of
‘white flight’ from English cities during the
period from 2001 to 2011.
• To supplement a traditional measure of
segregation, the dissimilarity index, with
measures comparing differences between
adjoining small areas.
• Look at whether the neighbouring small areas
with greatest differences become more or less
dissimilar by 2011, and how so.
• Motion charts also are presented stressing the
individual trajectories of different local authorities.

3. Overview
• Provide the context (the debate about ‘white
flight’).
• Argue that a decrease in a traditional segregation
index is not, in itself, evidence of decreasing
segregation.
• Provide an example of a spatial index (though it
does not resolve the above).
• Consider some different scenarios.
• Provide some qualitative evidence (not
necessarily reliable) to caution against dismissing
a ‘white flight’ partial explanation for demographic
change.

4. CONTEXT
Motion Charts, White Flight and Ethnic Cliffs?

5. Residential Geographies (2011)
Bangladeshi
Distribution of ethnic group by boroughs, counties and unitary authorities
●
●●●●
●●
●● ●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
● ●
●●
●●
●
●●
● ●●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
% Bangladeshi
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.5
< 0.6
< 2.9
< 32
Asian/Asian British:
Bangladeshi
●
●
Greatest percentage in Tower Hamlets
Greatest contrast between
Hackney and Tower Hamlets
(c) Creative Commons Licence, Rich Harris
Indian
Distribution of ethnic group by boroughs, counties and unitary authorities
●
●●●●
●●
●● ●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
● ●
●●
●●
●
●●
● ●●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
% Indian
< 0.4
< 1
< 2.3
< 2.8
< 13.4
< 28.3
Asian/Asian British:
Indian
●
●
Greatest percentage in Leicester
Greatest contrast between
Leicester and Leicestershire
(c) Creative Commons Licence, Rich Harris

6. Pakistani
Distribution of ethnic group by boroughs, counties and unitary authorities
●
●●●●
●●
●● ●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
● ●
●●
●●
●
●●
● ●●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
% Pakistani
< 0.1
< 0.5
< 1.6
< 2.2
< 9.9
< 20.4
Asian/Asian British:
Pakistani
●
●
Greatest percentage in Bradford
Greatest contrast between
Bradford and North Yorkshire
(c) Creative Commons Licence, Rich Harris
Chinese
Distribution of ethnic group by boroughs, counties and unitary authorities
●
●●●●
●●
●● ●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
● ●
●●
●●
●
●●
● ●●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
% Chinese
< 0.3
< 0.5
< 0.9
< 1
< 2.2
< 3.6
Asian/Asian British:
Chinese
●
●
Greatest percentage in City of London
Greatest contrast between
Cheshire East and Manchester
(c) Creative Commons Licence, Rich Harris

7. Black African
Distribution of ethnic group by boroughs, counties and unitary authorities
●
●●●●
●●
●● ●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
● ●
●●
●●
●
●●
● ●●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
% Black African
< 0.2
< 0.6
< 1.5
< 1.8
< 8
< 16.4
Black/African/Caribbean/
Black British:
African
●
●
Greatest percentage in Southwark
Greatest contrast between
Bromley and Southwark
(c) Creative Commons Licence, Rich Harris
Black Caribbean
Distribution of ethnic group by boroughs, counties and unitary authorities
●
●●●●
●●
●● ●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
● ●
●●
●●
●
●●
● ●●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
% Black Caribbean
< 0.1
< 0.3
< 0.8
< 1
< 4.9
< 11.2
Black/African/Caribbean/
Black British:
Caribbean
●
●
Greatest percentage in Lewisham
Greatest contrast between
Bromley and Lewisham
(c) Creative Commons Licence, Rich Harris

8. Of particular interest…
White British
Distribution of ethnic group by boroughs, counties and unitary authorities
●
●●●●
●●
●● ●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
● ●
●●
●●
●
●●
● ●●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
% White
< 71.5
< 88.5
< 93.6
< 94.4
< 96.6
< 97.6
White: English/Welsh/
Scottish/Northern
Irish/British
●
●
Greatest percentage in Redcar and Cleveland
Greatest contrast between
Redbridge and Essex
(c) Creative Commons Licence, Rich Harris

9. “Greater London+”
(change from 2001 to 2011)

10. Proportion of the population not White British in 2001
ProportionalchangeIntheWhiteBrit.Pop2001to2011

11. “Ethnic Cliffs”Distribution of ethnic group by boroughs, counties and unitary authorities
●
●●●●
●●
●● ●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●●
●●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
● ●
●●
●●
●
●●
● ●●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
% White
< 71.5
< 88.5
< 93.6
< 94.4
< 96.6
< 97.6
White: English/Welsh/
Scottish/Northern
Irish/British
●
●
Greatest percentage in Redcar and Cleveland
Greatest contrast between
Redbridge and Essex
(c) Creative Commons Licence, Rich Harris

12. The Sunday Times (Jan 27, 2013)

13. The Daily Mail online (Jan 27, 2013)

14. And yet…
• Ethnic segregation is falling in England (Catney,
2013)
• A lower proportion of the White British population
now living in majority White neighbourhoods than
they did in 2001 – a finding that is as true of
London alone as for the whole of England
(Johnston et al., 2013).
• “Academics cannot agree about whether [Britain]
is becoming more integrated or more segregated
in the wake of the unprecedented immigrant
inflows of the past 15 years” (Goodhart, 2013a,
p.47).

15. Different authorities, different trajectories
(Asian – White British)
P(Asian)

16. Different authorities, different trajectories
(Asian – White British)
P(Asian)

17. MEASURING SEGREGATION
Motion Charts, White Flight and Ethnic Cliffs?

18. Measures of Segregation
• Typically,
• The index of dissimilarity,
I ∝ Oi − Eii=1
n
∑
D =
1
2
xi
X
−
yi
Yi=1
n
∑
X = xii=1
n
∑
Y = yii=1
n
∑

19. Criticisms of such indices
• Not easy to interpret over time
• It assumes a ‘closed system’ and can lead
to false conclusions:
Dt1 − Dt0 f Δ xi X[ ],Δ yi Y[ ]( )
t0 t1 Assume D1 < D0
Is it decreased seg.?

20. Criticisms of such indices
• Have no measure of statistical
significance
• But then what is the benchmark to
compare against? (Who expects
populations to be randomly distributed?)

21. Criticisms of such indices
• Segregation is usually regarded as an
outcome or cause of spatial processes of
separation.
• But the index is largely blind to
geography.
• All the following produce ‘total
segregation’ (D = 1)

22. Local Measure of Dissimilarity
• Take the parts
• Add a spatial weights matrix
• Creates a spatially smoothed D
D = d1 + d2 + d3 +...+ dn
d1 =
x1
X
−
y1
Y
, etc.
Di
*
∝ wijj=1
n
∑ dj

23. A slight alternative
• A weighted comparison of neighbours
– Local Index of Spatial Association (LISA)
• Replace:
• With:
• For example, O is the proportion of the
population White British and w is a
contiguity matrix…
Ii
*
∝ wij Oj − Ejj=1
n
∑
Ii
*
∝ wij Oi −Ojj=1
n−1
∑

24. Most dissimilar (% residents White British)

25. A measure of discontinuity
• Example
– There is a census small area in Tower
Hamlets where 142 of its 258 residents
classified themselves as White British in the
2011 Census, and a further three as
Bangladeshi.
– Meanwhile, in a neighbouring area, 23 of the
211 residents are White British, and 142
Bangladeshi.
• The discontinuity can be calculated by
direct analogy to the dissimilarity index:
| 142/165 – 3/145 | = 0.840

26. Local Measure of (Max) Discontinuity
• In principle:
– For each small area, i, find the neighbour that
gives the maximum dissimilarity value, given a
minimum joint population threshold
X = xi + xj
Y = yi + yj
if X ≥ 30, Y ≥ 30 & wij =1,
dij = wij
xi
X
−
yi
Y
else
dij = NA
Dci
*
= max dij( )
Dc =
1
n
Dci
*
i=1
n
∑ ∀Dci
*
∉ NA{ }

27. But… spatial ‘double counting’
I will get:
I would prefer:

28. The algorithm
1. Pairs each small area (i) to a neighbour (j) that
is within 100 metres of its border, choosing that
neighbour which gives the maximum value of di.
A table is created with each i and its initial
pairing, j.
2. Searches through the table to identify and to
remove those rows containing duplicated values
of j, retaining only the maximum cases.
3. For those areas (i) expunged by Step 2,
searches again for a new pair from a list of
unmatched js, still using maximum value and
neighbour criteria.
4. Cycles through Steps 2 and 3 until no further
pairings are possible.

29. A by-product
• To count the cases that are omitted by the
population threshold and express them as
a proportion of the total pairings. This will
give a simple measure of how much the
population groups cluster within the study
region: the greater the number, the more
often one of the population groups is
found in neither of the neighbouring small
areas (or in low numbers within them).

30. Asian – White British

33. Oldham (2011)

34. Tower Hamlets (2011)

35. APPLICATION
Motion Charts, White Flight and Ethnic Cliffs?

36. Task
• Identify those neighbours with the
greatest (Asian – White British)
discontinuity scores in 2001
• See if those differences have increased or
decreased to 2011
• Explanation for the change

37. 1.0
3.5
7.5
14.0
23.5
41.0
Count
Greatest Asian – White British discontinuity
Top 590
(in 2001)

38. 1.0
15.0
45.5
97.5
205.0
333.0
Count
Greatest Asian – White British discontinuity
Top 5490
(in 2001)

39. What happened next?
• Of the 590 in 2001, 500 can be matched
to Census small areas in 2011 and, of
those, 71% have a decreased
discontinuity score.
• Of the 5490 in 2001, 5000 can be
matched and, of those, 74% have a
decreased score.

40. For the matched 500
• In 39% of cases
– The number of Asians residing in the area
with the lower proportion of Asians in 2001
had increased. The number in the neighbour
with the higher proportion of Asians had
decreased.
• In 49% of cases
– There are now more Asians living in both the
neighbours.
• In 69% of cases
– The number of White British in both areas had
decreased.

41. For the matched 5000
• In 32% of cases
– The number of Asians residing in the area
with the lower proportion of Asians in 2001
had increased. The number in the neighbour
with the higher proportion of Asians had
decreased.
• In 51% of cases
– There are now more Asians living in both the
neighbours.
• In 69% of cases
– The number of White British in both areas had
decreased.

42. • Finney and Simpson (2009) remind us, it
is a myth that minority groups want to live
in segregated neighbourhoods.
• More evidence…

43. Source:
CourtesyofJohnston,PoulsenandForrest,
London’sChangingEthnicLandscape
2001-2011:ACartographicEvaluation

44. Source:
CourtesyofJohnston,PoulsenandForrest,
London’sChangingEthnicLandscape
2001-2011:ACartographicEvaluation

45. Source:
CourtesyofJohnston,PoulsenandForrest,
London’sChangingEthnicLandscape
2001-2011:ACartographicEvaluation

46. But what about ‘White Flight’?
• Are apparent falls in segregation driven
more by the White British population
leaving areas rather than increased
mixing?

47. Source:
CourtesyofJohnston,PoulsenandForrest,
London’sChangingEthnicLandscape
2001-2011:ACartographicEvaluation

48. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21511904

49. Wordle of the highest rated comments
on the Mark Easton article

50. In response to a Mark Easton article
• Why have the White British left London?
– “Some of the Areas have become very Asian
oriented with shops that cater more for Asian
people Halal Butchers, Bangladeshi Bakers,
Mosques and Temples, local shops that are
dominated by Asian foods and spices, and
that cater very little for non Asian tastes. Is it
any wonder the White people move out?
People feel like strangers in the town where
they were born.”

51. In response to the Mark Easton article
• Why have the White British left London?
– “They have left because they've been pushed
out by migrants. A few weeks ago we heard of
some Islamic "men" castigating a man for not
being Muslim, asking if he was gay, and telling
him to "get out, this is a Muslim area”. Their
exact words were played on the radio so there
was no doubt over it. Time for the govt. to do
something about such migrants”

53. CONCLUSIONS
Motion Charts, White Flight and Ethnic Cliffs?